Wednesday, February 27, 2008

On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truthBarbara KayWednesday, February 27, 2008http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=336552

In a just world, Englishwoman Erin Pizzey, who founded the world's first shelter for battered wives in 1971, would be a sought-after speaker on the subject of domestic violence. In the real world, however, Pizzey's name is a byword for politically incorrect apostasy.

Pizzey's crime? A humanist, she challenged the belief system dictated by radical feminists, who colonized her shelter and made her presence untenable. Their ideological mantra, still alive and kicking, insists that men are the default perpetrators in domestic violence (also known as "intimate partner violence," or IPV, in the jargon) while women are invariably innocent victims who inflict violence only in self-defence. But Pizzey knew from her own experience (her wealthy, socially elite parents were mutually abusive, and her mother violent to Erin), and from what the women in her shelter told her, that most partner violence is reciprocal.

Holding women responsible for their violence was so at odds with the received wisdom of the movement's activists that, for her whistle-blowing pains, Pizzey's dog was killed and her entire family received death threats. Undaunted, she pursued her equal-responsibility crusade in the United States for many years in a fusillade of articles and books.

While dramatically extreme, Pizzey's story is nevertheless emblematic of the hostility truth-tellers confront in the domestic violence industry.

Another outlier, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton, is acknowledged by his peers as a world expert on IPV. He has proven, over and over again -- most recently in his definitive 2006 book, Rethinking Domestic Violence -- that the tendency to violence in intimate relationships is bilateral and rooted in individual dysfunction: Men and women with personality disorders and/or family histories of violence are equally likely to be violent themselves, or seek violent partners.

But Dutton's scientific credentials and extensive 25-year archive of peer-reviewed research cut no ice with Canadian policymakers, none of whom has ever solicited his advice.

Instead, pseudo-science absolving women of violent impulses, delivered on demand to interest groups by the same tiny, incestuous coterie of ideologically sympathetic professionals, is routinely applied in training police, family law judges, social workers and women's shelter personnel.

A lazy, politically correct media dutifully spreads the party line by reporting uncritically on bogus selection-biased "studies" by non-accredited stakeholders, who extrapolate to the general population data that are based on testimonials from men in court-mandated therapy programs or women in shelters.

Ah, women's shelters! Southern Ontario resident Mariel Davison offers up a rather damning story of what happens when naively impartial volunteerism collides with women's shelter groupthink.

Davison has an honours degree in psychology. A few years ago, considering herself an "equal opportunity feminist," she volunteered to serve at a local women's shelter. During eight weeks' "training," Davison was subjected to relentless male-bashing and junk science. That, and the puzzling incongruity of the female-as-victim message with the battered lesbians who also sought refuge -- lesbian violence was a taboo subject amongst trainees -- led to further intellectual inquiry.

Davison thought her trove of cutting-edge findings would prove welcome, but instead they got her turfed by her peers: "I was told I had too much education to volunteer at the shelter."

Incredulous, Davison dogged the shelter's supervising and financing government ministries with demands that they review objective literature, but was stonewalled at every turn. Nothing came of her campaign.

And nothing will for the foreseeable future, because the domestic-violence industry is a closed shop, from Women's Studies courses (don't look for Pizzey's or Dutton's research there, or in Men's Studies, since there are none), to women-only shelters, to Status of Women, to the National Judicial Council, to the Supreme Court of Canada. They're all reading from the same myth-riddled hymnbook.

Erin Pizzey and Don Dutton were both keynote speakers at a recent Sacramento, Calif. conference sponsored by an independent body, the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center (Motto: "Advocating for nondiscriminatory and evidence-based policies"). Pizzey accepted a lifetime achievement award to a prolonged ovation.

Pizzey told her standing-room-only audience that for gender politics "Canada is the scariest country on the planet." Scary to men who suffer because of it, certainly, but apparently not to most other Canadians, who remain curiously indifferent to the demonstrable misandry permeating the institutions that define and shape our culture.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

This received this morning while I was with police after allegations were made by a Labour Party blog ( The Standard) that I had threatened to kill a National MP and sending offensive texts to the owner of kiwiblog David Farrar. The Ian this animal referrs to is Ian Wishart from the blog tbr.cc. If anybody knows the real identity of cowardly keyboard creep called fugley could they please email as enough is enough.

You know the best welfare system of all, it's called the family. If you think about it, what's the best organisation at bringing up children, at helping us with the right values, helping us get on with life, looking after us if we are sick or disabled, caring for the elderly, it's the family.

And in this world of unease as well as freedom we need to do more to support the family, and again the old politics are failing. Look at Britain today: one in four children brought up with an absent father, the highest rate of family breakdown in Europe, and I just don't believe we can walk on by from the evidence that's in front of us.

Children from broken homes have a 70 % chance of failing at school, a 40% greater chance of getting into debt, a 35% chance of being unemployed. Single mums do a brilliant job, they do the most difficult job in the world but, I don't think we can ignore the state of family breakdown in Britain and I think we have to try and do something about it.

You know there is a phenomenon in Britain that's called LATs - that's Living Apart Together and there are two million people who pretend to live apart because the benefits system pays you more to live apart than live together.

I met a young man the other day, he came to my office, he had recently been in prison and he was trying to go straight, he had got a job, he's got a kid already and he's got another on the way. He is being mentored by someone in my office and the only reason he doesn't live with the mother of his children is because she would loose benefits if he did.

We must be crazy in this country to be using the benefits system to drive people apart rather than bring them together. We've got a tax system that doesn't recognise marriage and we've got a benefit system that actually recognises any form of co-habitation, any form of commitment and penalises it.

So what will we do to change that?

Well, as George has set out, we will end the couple's penalty in the benefit system, so we don't penalise couples, we will reward them and yes I believe we should recognise marriage in the tax system as well.

But I don't just want to give people a tax cut, I want to give people a time increase, time for many families is the most precious commodity of all, time you can spend at home, time to help with the home work, time you can do things in the house and that's why I think its time not just for these benefit and tax changes I've spoken about but also to say to all employees in all companies with children that you should have the right to ask for flexible working.

Companies that have adopted this have found that they are able to grant the request in the vast majority of cases, they have actually found that productivity has gone up, profits have gone up, staff morale has gone up and keeping staff is easier. I think at the next election we will be able to offer people the strongest family package any Party has put together. Yes we will recognise marriage in the tax system, yes we will take the couples penalty out of the tax system and yes we will give people more time, more flexibility, so we can be the Party of the family once again.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Unfortunately radical feminists and "women's groups" are in denial about the reality of female domestic abuse and violence by their own biases and misandry (hatred of male).

In New Zealand Government agencies are over flowing with radical feminists who openly display vindictive and vengeful traits. Radical feminists are so full of hatred they are blinded by their own ideologies and they detest providing practical solutions to avoid conflict, which makes my idea of the introduction of a coal face early intervention service a mere distant dream.A service that could provide a mutually agreeable solution within 2- 3 weeks or sooner. DV studies in New Zealand show that both genders are roughly equal in numbers represented in DV statistic's, however a female assault male charge does not appear in Crown law's extensive artillery.

The number of women accused of violence against partners has risen by almost 25 per cent in five years, and domestic violence workers blame the rise on police mistakenly arresting victims for trying to defend themselves.

Policies encouraging arrests for domestic violence have had the unintended effect of increasing the risk that women will be arrested with an abusive partner or be blamed for violence, they say.

That view is backed by a new report by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, which warns it can be hard to pick the aggressor but that accusing victims can make them distrust the justice system.

In the 12 months to September 2003 police recorded 4,918 women as persons of interest for perpetrating domestic violence. By 2006-07 that had risen to 6,056, figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show.

Of the women arrested for domestic violence-related assault in the five years to last September only 32 per cent of the cases reached court, compared with 56 per cent of cases involving men, statistics show.

The bureau's director, Don Weatherburn, said the increase was likely to have been driven by more than one factor. Others could include an increase in binge drinking, or more men who were willing to admit they are victims.

"It's possible that people are becoming less tolerant of violence by females than they used to be," he said. More women are also being arrested for assault not related to domestic violence, which some attribute to a rise in alcohol abuse. Others say women can be as violent as men, and that in more than half of violent partnerships partners struck each other.

The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse report said policies encouraging arrest or making it mandatory had resulted in a rise in the arrest of the perpetrators and "a corresponding rise in the number of dual arrest and single arrests of women for domestic violence".

The report warned it was sometimes hard for police to identify who was the victim or the perpetrator, especially if both had injuries. Wounds inflicted in self-defence, such as biting, were more immediately visible than bruising.

A report on domestic violence by the NSW Ombudsman in 2006 raised similar concerns, saying it was especially a problem in cases involving same-sex parties or in which the victim did not conform to stereotypes of how victims should behave. This could result in a lack of action or the wrong response.

"Sometimes she's hysterical, or doesn't look like what they think a victim should look like," said a spokeswoman for the NSW Domestic Violence Coalition, Betty Green. "It's easy to make a judgment rather than an assessment. Going through the court process as a perpetrator of violence, when that's not what it's all about, can be shattering."

However, Superintendent Rod Smith, commander of policy and programs, said every police force in Australia had rejected primary aggressor policies as a bad investigative tool. Police did need to get better at identifying victims.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

A view from the Trenches: "The Temporary Band-Aid Fix-Don't Get Married, Don't Have Children and Don't Live with Anybody"

By Terry Lear FRA (Can)

englishman@sympatico,ca

February 2008

Soon after April of 1987, when my case first hit the courts (and we are still in court by the way), the first garbage I had from my ex-wife's lawyer clearly stated: "The Bond must be maintained betweeen the Mother and the Children"

Let's get one thing straight, divorce courts are purposely, atrociously, maliciously and recklessly run for one reason only, and that is to make countless lawyers, judges and those in related agencies, incredibly rich. Anti-Male Bias is rampant. This ensures that our acrimonious divorces last forever because of the deliberately engineered hostility.

As for accountability, what's that? We have "Judges Judging Judges" and "Lawyers Judging Lawyers"...

So many "experts" in the media, who write about these catastrophic problems are either clueless or they are deliberately hiding the truth just for their own personal gain. Hey, why let the truth spoil a good story eh?

How bad is it for Men? Take note, in July of 2001, one particular outrageous court order in Toronto was made against me and made effective IMMEDIATELY, just in case I died in an ambulance while being rushed to Emergency. How evil can any judge be? Unbelievable....

Police harass me and remove me from courtrooms when the judge recognizes me as being the notoriously well-known and incredibly honest ex-Father who reported judges, and who complained to the United Nations, and who just refuses to surrender and/or die.

Hitler and his goons treated my imprisoned Family in Europe better than the "Family" courts have treated me.......!

We have tried almost everything, demonstrated peacefully around the World, we have spoken face-to-face with Prime Ministers and literally hundreds of MPs and we have been constantly lied to. It's outrageous the way in which we have been treated.

Perhaps we should read more about the Suffragettes and how they got things moving... something's gotta happen.. and losing this WAR is not an option.

IN THE MEANTIME, MY CURRENT ADVICE TO ALL YOUNG MEN AS A TEMPORARY "BAND-AID FIX" IS: "DON'T GET MARRIED, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN AND DON'T LIVE WITH ANYBODY...!"

Terry Lear

Toronto

Feb 2008

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fathers_are_capable_too/message/28735

"When we are really honest with ourselves we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us, so it is how we use our lives that determine what kind of men we are...." "To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us to be men".

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

HIGH COURT JUDGE PRESIDING OVER MAGILL PATERNITY FRAUD CASE HAD A CHILD AS A RESULT OF AFFAIR

By Newswire ServicesFebruary 19, 2008

By Newswire ServicesFebruary 19, 2008High Court Judge, Justice Susan Crennan, who presided over the now infamous Liam Magill paternity case, had herself given birth as the result of an affair, according to the new book, "Days of Tempest," to be released today.

Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, the Honourable Martin Ferguson, confirmed the allegations were true in a private meeting with Mr Magill in 2006.

The Magill case began following DNA tests in 2000, which revealed Mr. Magill was the biological father of only the first of their three children born to his then wife, Meredith Magill, between April 1989 and November 1991.

After the couple separated in late 1992, Mr. Magill made child support payments for all three children until 1999. At one time, his take-home pay was reduced to about $130 a week.

He was awarded compensation in 2002, but that decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Mr. Magill launched a further appeal to the High Court, which ruled against him in 2006.

"The High Court's decision should be made null and void. It was a total conflict of interest, and Crennan should have excused herself," said Mr. Magill´s current partner, Cheryl King. Justice Crennan´s past was made known to Mr. Magill by Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt.

"A short time before the High Court of Australia handed down their decision, our lawyer received a phone call from Andrew Bolt, a journalist from the Herald Sun Newspaper, in Melbourne. He raised an issue about Justice Susan Crennan and her past adultery/affair, which produced a son," said Ms King.

A short time later Liam met with the now Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, the Honourable Martin Ferguson. Ferguson confirmed that the paternity issues surrounding Susan Crennan were true.

"Ferguson said that through information provided by his colleagues, he could confirm the rumours were true," said Ms King. Ferguson used this meeting to remind Liam that Crennan was a Howard Government appointee - a fact that was already known to both Magill and King.

The book, "Days of Tempest" – The Liam Magill Story, by American author Lea Anna Cooper, alleges that Justice Susan Crennan was in a relationship at the time she had this affair, and she already had one son by her then spouse.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Father's rights campaigner Jason Hatch say Fathers4Justice will be back with a bang this year with 'spectacular' protests in Cheltenham.The activist, who scaled the walls of Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman, says he will resume his high-profile publicity stunts.

Mr Hatch, 35, said: "I've been taking a bit of a back seat but the time is right to come out with a big bang - we're going to push it really hard this year.

"We'll be going after Gordon Brown and also national security targets and roads. I've always said GCHQ is a target for one of my protests - it's in my home town and it's a national security institution. There is still a big group in Cheltenham. We've got to do something to get into the public eye again."

Jason, who now lives in Wiltshire but still owns property in Cheltenham, said he was getting back to campaigning because the law regarding fathers' access to their children has not changed.

He said: "My ex-wife cut off contact with my children. I'm having to go through the courts again to be able to see them.

"Nothing's changed, the system is still against fathers.

"I still talk to guys every day who tell me what difficulties they've had and what they've had to go through."

"This time we're able to track some high-level members of Parliament and the Government so we can target the people right at the top."

Last October Jason, who has four children, was cleared of charges of kidnap after handcuffing ex-Children's Minister Margaret Hodge during a conference in Salford in 2004.

He said: "Getting acquitted shows we still have the support of the public."

Divorce is a MASSIVE CRIMINAL RACKET for crooked judges and lawyers“Because, as any divorcing dad knows to his cost, they serve to threaten the one thing in life they hold most dear - access to the children. For a vengeful and unscrupulous wife, allegations of cruelty and abuse are the ultimate weapon in her armoury. Never mind that "abuse" is a term now so loose in law it abuse it can mean anything from being a wife-beater to a husband who shouts at the dog.”

It is no longer about justice; it is an opportunity for avarice, a theatre for character assassination and a gladiatorial contest in which everyone loses – except the lawyers."

I hope the 50 plus parasitic suckhole lying lawyers enjoyed their vile blood money earned from my major depressive episode ! Lawyers are the scum of the earth - gutter filth and not to be trusted.

Avarice, cruelty and what this tawdry case tells us about the injustice of modern divorce 14th February 2008

What an utterly unedifying spectacle the divorce of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills has turned out to be.

Treachery, greed, drug taking, violence – the allegations have been endless.Few now could doubt that here was a marriage as short as it was miserable, ending in a lingering acrimony that no amount of PR spin or brave smiles outside the courtroom can disguise.

Now, as the final scenes are played out in the High Court and the couple reportedly edge towards a deal, it is tempting to dismiss this nightmare as belonging to a world apart from ours, a world of private jets and public histrionics. But the truth is that this carnival of bile, this showbiz showdown, demonstrates everything that is wrong with the divorce laws of Britain today.

Let's step back and take stock of the settlement that Heather is said to be seeking. The sums differ wildly, according to which of the warring camps you believe.Undeserving? Heather Mills will reputedly get around £55million.But the most reliable estimate thus far is that the former Ms Mills is in line for roughly £55 million,made up of a £20 million lump sum, plus £2.5million a year for the next 14 years, until their daughter Bea turns 18.

By any reckoning, that's an astronomical return on a marriage that lasted just four short and unhappy years. Heather denies she ever set out to be a gold-digger, yet the result is that she will emerge from that courtroom with a fortune far, far beyond anything she could have hoped to earn independently.And for her to suggest that it is in any way an equitable return on the emotional investment and sacrifices she made in motherhood and marriage is farcical.Granted, if she and Macca had been married for 40 years, she would have a far more persuasive case for sympathy. But four years? That's not a marriage, it's an overgrown fling.

Nonetheless, the law is on Heather's side. Because common sense, it seems, counts for nothing in the divorce courts today, still less a modicum of decency and fair play. The result is that marriage itself has been cheapened. For if this bitter case has served one purpose, it has been to send a powerful message that divorce is a bonanza for women, however badly they behave, and especially if they choose to give up work the moment they marry. Whether she intended it or not, Heather has become an icon for the Great Female Gold-Digger's Movement, and one who will have lasting consequences.

We saw a precursor to this case with the landmark judgement in 2005 when the £85,000-a-year PR executive Melissa Miller took £5 million of her husband's earnings after less than three years of a childless marriage. How can it be right, in our age of equal opportunities, that a divorced man is forced to work into perpetuity to compensate an ex-wife - even successful, professional, skilled women who are more than capable of supporting themselves independently? The same is true, incidentally, of those increasingly common cases where a high-earning woman separates from a husband she has been supporting financially.

Whatever the sexes concerned, it is manifestly unfair that when two adults are capable of working, only one should continue to shoulder the main financial burden in the event of a separation - all the more so when that burden is so unnecessary.

Yesterday a High Court judge decided that serial divorcee Susan Sangster will walk away from her fourth marriage without a penny from her last husband because they had both signed a pre-nuptial agreement and both were independently wealthy. But how had Ms Sangster amassed her personal £18 million fortune? Yes, through her three previous divorces. Heather Mills will certainly be independently wealthy as well, after her divorce.

Just look at the list of demands that the Mills camp has presented as justification for the massive payout it is seeking. We are led to believe Heather needs two homes, one in Britain and another in the U.S., 24-hour security and two full time nannies, household staff, a secretary and personal trainer - all to be paid for by her ex-husband.Now, of course, children must be properly provided for financially. But this isn't a checklist of necessity, it’s a shopping basket of greed and indulgence from a woman who, until she got her talons into Macca, was living a comfortable but by no means luxurious life in the mews flat she shared with a tennis tournament organiser.Ah, say Heather's team, but the fall-out from her acrimonious divorce is such that she is now virtually unemployable. I rather doubt that. Even if she is obliged to sign a gagging clause as part of the deal, her future bankability will owe far more to her brief marriage to a Beatle than to her own rather limited talents.

Indeed, without it she'd be earning a pittance. How much do you imagine Heather Mills – landmine campaigner and former glamour model - would be earning now, aged 40, if she hadn't shot to fame thanks to her marriage? She'd be lucky if she netted £50,000 a year. So how can it be right that she should walk away with £50million?

But perhaps even more damagingly, this case also teaches us that in today's divorce courts, women who engage in cruelty and smear tactics - egged on by their lawyers - can be sure that it will increase their eventual payouts. By all accounts, Paul is no saint, but the lengths Ms Mills' so-called friends have gone to vilify him have been breathtaking. He may well be mean with his money (who can blame him for that, given the way things turned out?), but a wife-beater, an alcoholic, a druggie?Three decades of marriage to Linda would suggest differently, despite the rocky patches that they supposedly encountered.

So, why smear his character through carefully placed leaks? Why propagate such hateful stories? Because, as any divorcing dad knows to his cost, they serve to threaten the one thing in life they hold most dear - access to the children. For a vengeful and unscrupulous wife, allegations of cruelty and abuse are the ultimate weapon in her armoury. Never mind that "abuse" is a term now so loose in law it can mean anything from being a wife-beater to a husband who shouts at the dog. A wife doesn't have to prove her allegations for them to be taken seriously in the eyes of the divorce courts. A judge must rightly consider the safety of the children first. Proof is difficult to ascertain. The result? All too often a father, damned by his wife's allegations, knows that it is better to be the victim of an unjust financial settlement than to be denied access to his children. Some might call that justice. I'd call it blackmail.

For little Bea, of course, it may already be too late. With a vilified mother and a humiliated father, no amount of luxury homes or holidays will compensate for the fall-out from her parents' very public cruelty to each other.

Who are the winners here? Paul's entourage of lawyers, supposedly the most expensive ever assembled for a divorce case in Britain, will walk away with millions. And this circus will doubtless be a nice little earner for Heather's hangers-on, the personal trainer and the make-up artist.

But as for the main protagonists, Heather will get her blood money, yes, but in the process she has become one of the most vilified women in Britain. The once great Beatle is now living proof that there's no fool like an old and rich fool. Lasting damage has been inflicted on all the children caught up in the crossfire - not just Bea, but Paul's three grown-up offspring, too.

No, whatever the eventual deal, there are no winners here.

But the real legacy of the Mills v. McCartney case is this: it has demonstrated, in all-too-painful detail, exactly what's wrong with divorce in this country. It is no longer about justice; it is an opportunity for avarice, a theatre for character assassination and a gladiatorial contest in which everyone loses – except the lawyers.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

><>><< "Our review backs up the intuitive assumption that engaged biological fathers or father figures are good for children, ....">>

Dads DO matter: Why children brought up by BOTH parents are happier and more successfulBy JENNY HOPE - Last updated at 09:11am on 13th February 2008http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=513962&in_page_id=1774

Children behave better, learn more and are better adjusted if their father is involved in their lives, a major study shows.

Researchers found that a good relationship between youngsters and fathers had a positive effect that could last for two decades. In low-income homes, regular contact was also seen to lead to less juvenile crime.

Anna Sarkadi, of Sweden's Uppsala University, where the research was carried out, said: "Our detailed 20-year review shows that overall, children reap positive benefits if they have active and regular engagement with a father figure. "We found various studies that showed that children who had positively involved father figures were less likely to smoke and get into trouble with the police, achieved better levels of education and developed good friendships with children of both sexes. "Long-term benefits included women who had better relationships with partners and a greater sense of mental and physical well-being at the age of 33 if they had a good relationship with their father at 16. "It may seem obvious that what's worked for centuries is good for individuals and society, but that's what we found."

She said the studies showed the value of the father's input as a role model from babyhood to the teenage years. The review, published in the latest issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, looked at 24 papers published between 1987 and 2007. The smallest study focused on 17 infants and the largest covered 8,441 people ranging from premature babies to 33-year-olds. As well as examining research from Sweden and Israel, the Uppsala team looked at large-scale studies in the U.S. and the UK. They found that children who lived with both a mother and father figure had fewer behavioural problems than those who lived with their mother only.

Behavioural problems in boys, and psychological problems in girls, were also less frequent. Intelligence, reasoning and language were more advanced in children who had good contact with both parents. The researchers said it was not clear whether living with a biological father confers an advantage over living with a father figure alone. "Our review backs up the intuitive assumption that engaged biological fathers or father figures are good for children, especially when the children are socially or economically disadvantaged," added Dr Sarkadi. "Children who lived with both a mother and father figure had less behavioural problems than those who lived with just their mother. "However, it is not possible to tell whether this is because the father figure is more involved or whether the mother is able to be a better parent if she has more support."

Norman Wells, of Family and Youth Concern, an independent charity, said the study showed that fathers were not an optional extra. "Fathers and mothers complement each other and together provide a richness of care within the family that you can't replicate in any other setting," he added.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Ten-One Community Edition: 305 February 2008 is brought to you by The New Zealand PoliceTo ensure continued delivery, please add nzpolice@inbox.net.nz to your address bookIf this does not display clearly, please visit: http://www.tenone.police.govt.nz/tenone/

New Code of Conduct in place

The New Zealand Police Code of Conduct, outlining the expected behaviour and performance of all sworn and nonsworn staff, came into effect on 1 February 2008.

The introduction of a Code of Conduct for all staff was a central recommendation in Dame Margaret Bazley’s 2007 report resulting from the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct.

A nonsworn Code of Conduct, introduced in 1993, is replaced by the new Code. However, in the history of NZ Police, there has never been a Code of Conduct for sworn staff. Instead, behavioural breaches by sworn staff have been covered by quasi-military rules and regulations, and complicated disciplinary processes.

Wayne Annan, General Manager Human Resources at Police National Headquarters, says the new Code allows NZ Police to deal with behavioural issues in a more efficient, appropriate, impartial and timely manner – in keeping with modern employment practices.

New Police Amendment Regulations, giving effect to the Code of Conduct, were gazetted on 13 December last year.

This new process provides a progressive system which allows for a series of up to three warnings. A Disciplinary Hearing may still be held where a breach of the Code of Conduct is considered so serious that dismissal may be contemplated. It also allows NZ Police to address ongoing performance issues in an appropriate manner.

“These processes apply to all staff in the same way, and have been developed with the service organisations,” says Wayne.

“The result is greater certainty about the consequences of breaching the standards of behaviour contained within the Code of Conduct.”

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Liarbour criminals are spending millions of dollars on social policies to little or no effect, a damning new report says.

The Salvation Army, whom I respect and support 100% has slammed the Liarbour criminals performance on a wide range of social service indicators, just as our bent Prime Minister Miss Klark and Heather Simpson prepare to unveil their stinking thinking agenda programme at the opening of Parliament today!

Read and weep again New Zealand citizen and be frightened, as these political radical creeps presently ruining our country are dangerous and are responsible for large-scale child abuse through incompetence and criminal negligence.They are accountable and should be charged and dealt with in the International Court of Justice .

* CYFS referrals up 24% since 2005 ( A Family Court Judge told me off record at a Family Group Conference that ; "CYFS are that dysfunctional they are dangerous."

* Youth Court cases up 28% since 2001

* 8300 women aged 15-19 pregnant compared to 7000 in 2001

* Serious Crime up 28% since 2002

* Prison population up 36% since 2002.Prison running costs up from $431m to $862m

* Wage growth 5.1% since 2002

* I have added this one,because I find it shamefully criminal and bloody offensive that since 2003, more spin-doctors are on the government payroll than all the journalists working at TVNZ, RadioNZ, the Sunday Star –Times and the Dominion Post newspapers combined ?What the hell,history tells us the propaganda machine is vital to the continuance of any spiteful regime or dictatorship !!

Shame on you Helen Klark, your vile radical feminist ideology's are selfish and detrimental to a balanced and harmonious society.History is going to have severe repercussions for such a deceitful person, who lives a double life of debauchery !

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Hey hey, my myMum and dad will never dieThere's more to the pictureThan meets the eyeHey hey, my my

Out of the bed and into the blueYou pay for this and them kids give you thatOnce you're gone, you can't come backWhen you're out of the familyAnd into the heavenly

The father is gone but he's not forgottenIs the story of things gone rotten?It's better to burn out 'cause rust never sleepsThe father is gone but he's not forgotten

Hey hey, my myMum and dad will never dieThere's more to the pictureThan meets the eye

My daughter has just started her year 11 at the local state high school. My only concern this year is providing her with a stable family unit, so she can achieve her level 1 NCEA qualification. I have set the healthy boundaries and will assist her wherever and whenever I can. Sadly she has not been brought up with boundaries since she left my care over seven years ago when false allegations caused law enforcement authorities to callously and systematically destroy my family unit. My precious daughter is actually enjoying learning new boundaries, values,moral behaviours and responsibility that I have put in place, as a caring –common sense dad. Her attitude has changed for the better, big time. She is enjoying the bond of love in a healthy child/parent relationship of trust. All children want to enjoy being loved by a mum or dad.Other things may change us,but we start and end with Family.

I do feel sorry for our youth today in what are often the problematic teenage years. Children are attacked at every angle by the crazy over the top media, peer pressures and the 'out there' technology e.g. compulsory bebo website and cellphone. They are programmed by a lost the plot society that want them to grow up, to young, to dam fast.

The difference between children that make it and children that don’t is often the love of one caring adult. The government can never replace the loyalties contained within family interactions and units. Bad governance feels threatened by these family bonds of love, because they are difficult to break and control.The socialist feminist manifesto must destroy the family and create a new efficient and effective fractured family industry without delay.They create destructive family policy and H1 & H2 cuddle up for a sinister laugh. The selfish ‘ism snake’ must slither forward, as radical feminists nail down the bias agenda, so the traditional family is dead and buried.Their intense hatred towards the family and fathers in particular will go to the grave with the vengeful and vindictive radical feminists, who suck lemon's at the thought of a happy family unit.Yuck to mum - dad & the kids.

The problem with society today is that the constant barrage of undermining parental rights by both Labour and National has allowed the children to seize the power base from their concerned parents.Children's rights has caused imbalance and directly responsible for increases in youth criminality and school yard anti - social behaviours. Distraught parents cannot control rebellious teenagers, because the sinister socialists that make up the Nanny State have installed wholesale fear factors throughout society.Teachers are lost in a world devoid of discipline. The smack police will attend a call ASAP, while they send a cab to a murder scene and sit at the coffee shop and watch, while a maniac behind the wheel of a car kills couple of girls!The judges just carrying on working on lowering their golfing handicap ! Shame on our politicized judicial system and corrupt police force.

Traditional family values of dignity and respect have been all but obliterated by the radical/powerful feminazi’s that have seized the power base of our country. New Zealand is built on a bedrock of ideological lies.

The state agencies that claim to act in the child’s best interests view family separation as a file number that is to be milked for every cent it’s worth.Easy blood money is easy to accept money - when you haven’t got a conscience.For example,in my case, it has meandered along in the de family court since 2001 and it is far from finished.Lots of legal aid lawyers etc.... The Ministry of Justice are all twisted political sneaks leaching a living without daring rocking the deceitful boat. Unfortunately my shocked daughters got their first Ministry of Injustice funded psychologist and lawyer when they reached their sixth and eighth birthdays'.Well done you sadist,bent,lying creeps.

The evil lawyers,twisted social workers, bent police and two faced psychologists profit from all the misery created and that is why fatherlessness is on the increase and a structured family unit on the decrease. The family court do not keep statistics, because they operate behind a veil of secrecy that allows it to do whatever, whenever it likes in an unaccountable fashion. If it was a open court of justice it would clearly show the many unhappy males called disgruntled litigants, usually forced male clients who appear increasingly more in suicide statistics.

The family breakdown costs this country billions a year and the ideologically driven politicians can take responsibility.Read and weep at the numbers of troublesome youth and don’t forget we’re Gold Medalists at child abuse, teenage pregnancies,teenage abortions, youth drug abuse, etc…etc…

Our children deserve better from a disgraceful government that is completely out with step with normality.The radical feminists and cowardly eunuchs that litter our Parliament are puppets who crusade minority- agenda social policies.Their insipid one eye subjectivity is seriously detrimental to justice so purported to be sought. They pamper to minority groups, who can make the loudest noise e.g. pinko -rainbow Labour homosexual activists like Tim Barnett and Chris Carter.

Proud to be a kiwi -yeah right !

Shameful Statistics New Zealand.

*More than 25,000 young people aged 15 to 19 are not in any form of education, training or work.

*Nearly 30 per cent of students leave school before 17.Around 40% fail to get any NCEA level-two qualification.

*The number of youth apprehensions for violent offences has increased by 39% up from 2690 in 1995 to 3743 in 2006.

*As many as four out of five young offenders before the Youth Court have a drug or alcohol problem.

Sources: National Party and Labour Party speeches

The mortal enemy of mum and dad are gangs.Incredulously an event that both Helen Klark and John Key attended saw North Island gangs use free food and drink to entice young Maori during a "recruitment drive" at Waitanagi's Te Tii Marae on Waitanagi Day !Shame on Maori,shame on politicians who are hell bent on the pursuit of power.

Parents believe they are undervalued by society, regularly shunned by businesses and often receive unsympathetic treatment from employers.

Are parents undervalued by society? Email your feedback to editorial@stuff.co.nz

A Families Commission survey has revealed nearly two-thirds of parents surveyed believe society views their role as either not important or only "somewhat" important.

Less than a quarter of those surveyed felt their employers rated parenting as being either important or very important.

Parents complained about being made to feel unwelcome by cafes if they were with small children, and public transport operators failing to cater to their needs.

New mother Jacqui Whelan said pram access was generally poor at shops and on public transport.

"It depends where you are, but you're often left on your own."

Other mothers said it was hard to gauge whether cafes and restaurants allow them to breast-feed, and shopping trips could be hampered by a dearth of hygienic baby-changing facilities.

Chief family commissioner Rajen Prasad said those attitudes sent a subtle message to parents that their role was not valued.

Katrina Bootsma said it was often hard to judge how public breastfeeding of her daughter would be received. "It's still hard to catch the vibe of where you can breastfeed."

Kaye Patterson said she was often appalled by the quality of baby-changing areas.

"Porirua's [mall] was small and it stank."

Dr Prasad said raising children was the most important job many people would do, and it was essential for communities to be more supportive.

"Service industries can also do more to support parents - cafes that turn away mothers with babies, and bus drivers that take off while people are still struggling to seat young children are subtly showing they do not value parenting."

Employers' attitudes needed to change. "Flexible workplaces are key. Parents need work that suits their parenting needs as well."

Cafe manager Tony Castro, who has a one-year-old son, agreed many restaurants did not actively gear themselves toward children.

"It depends how you look at these things. We just get on with it ... We've taken Angus down to dinner at the Matterhorn."

Mr Castro, who manages Caffe L'Affare in College St, said cafes that discouraged families could begin losing out on business.

"We have people who come down and spend a couple of hundred bucks on lunch with their families."

The survey also showed many parents did not feel able to seek advice on raising their children out of fear of being judged as failures.

"Most parents do a good job raising their children, but there are times when they could do with some extra support.

"There is also still a perception that parenting should come naturally and that if we need support then it is a sign of failure."

Dr Prasad said the commission was launching a parenting advice website in response to the survey, which would offer child-rearing tips and direct parents toward support providers, such as Plunket and Barnardos.

"The more parents know about child development and appropriate methods of child-rearing through the different ages and stages of a child's life the stronger and more successful the family will be."

My published comment; I have known this for years, because we have a bias government hell bent on undermining parental rights, much too the detriment for our society. Just look at the problems associated with the break down of the family. - dad4justice

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Here's a story about George Clooney. It is an exampleof what NOT to do. Talk about absolute stupidity:

George Clooney has reportedly asked girlfriend SarahLarson to move in with him. The 46-year-old actor hasbeen dating 29-year-old Sarah, since meeting her whileshe worked as a cocktail waitress in a Las Vegas hotel,and has now asked her to join him in his Hollywood Hillshome.

A source close to the actor said, "Sarah is alwayswith George anyway, so it just makes sense. Plus helikes having her around. She has made him very happyand doesn't stress him out. She's easygoing and loving,and that's what he needs right now." George, who wasfamous for his bachelor lifestyle before falling forSarah, has also asked her to share his New Yorkapartment with him.

The source added, "George has bought Sarah an entirecloset full of clothes to keep in Manhattan so shewouldn't have to pack a suitcase when she flies Eastwith him. He has also told Sarah she is free to usehis credit cards. No wonder Sarah is head over heelsin love."

Rudov's Comment: George is a matadormat. I wrote aboutguys like him in "How to Lure a Golddigger." Can youimagine the palimony George will have to pay when (notif) they break up? With all that he's accomplished, heneeds a broke, 29-year-old cocktail waitress??? He letsher move in??? He gives her his credit cards??? Lunacy.This is why Valentine's Day thrives.

THIS is why men keep losing their rights and thenvote for politicians like Hillary, who will abridgemore men's rights. Men don't understand this basicprinciple: If a man can't handle women in restaurants,(requiring egalitarian spending), he'll never be ableto handle them on the Senate floor!

This interview is archived on my site's Media Center.

Item #3========

Reminder: Thursday (02.07.08), I will debate Lis Wiehlfrom Pebble Beach instead of from the remote studio inSan Francisco. This time, I will be sitting next to NeilCavuto, and Lis will be back in NYC. I still don't knowthe topic, but I'm sure it will be good. Fox News Channelat 4PM ET.

Fiction: Most children are satisfied with the amount of time they spend (or spent) with their fathers after their parents divorce.

Fact: The vast majority of children say they want - or wanted - more time with their fathers after their parents stopped living together. Kids want more shared parenting. 1-16

Fiction: As long as the mother has enough money, children don't pay a price for having too little or no contact with their father.

Fact: Kids with too little fathering are more likely to have problems throughout their lives related to father absence than kids whose fathers remained actively involved after the parents stop living together. 1-17

Fiction: Most divorced or never married parents are too hostile to share parenting or to benefit from programs on co-parenting.

Fact: Parents generally cooperate more after attending shared parenting programs. Only 10- 15% are in high conflict. 18-22

Fiction: Shared parenting is bad for infants or young children because they should not be separated overnight from their mother.

Fact: Very young children should not be away from either parent for more than a few days and are able to spend nights in each parent’s home. 23-26

Fiction: When parents share parenting, children are worse off financially because their dad pays much less child support.

Fact: Fathers who share parenting are the most likely to pay child support, spend additional money on their kids, and contribute to college educations. 27, 28, 33, 9

Fiction: Shared parenting is less important than good mothering because fathers know so much less about raising kids than moms do.

Fact: Fathers contribute as much as mothers to children’s well-being, even if their ways of parenting are different. 12, 17, 29-31

Fiction: Most divorced fathers are not interested in sharing more of the parenting.

Fact: The overwhelming majority of divorced fathers want more time with their children and more shared parenting. 32-39

Fiction: Children dislike shared parenting if they actually have to live part time in both parents’ homes, moving back and forth.

Fact: Kids who live part time with each parent after divorce prefer this to living only with one parent. 2, 10, 40, 41

---

Almost half of the children in the U.S. are deprived of the lifelong benefits of two parents who share the parenting throughout the first 18 years of their children’s lives.

Who are children living with? 42

55% mother & father - 4% unmarried

21% single mother - half divorced and half never married

14% mother and step-father

5% neither parent

2% mother and her boyfriend

1% father and step-mother

0.5% father and his girlfriend

Only 15%-20% of parents share parenting after divorce. 6, 9,15 Existing legal procedures and attitudes of people who influence the decisions about children’s living arrangements often make shared parenting harder to achieve. 25, 26, 33, 43-47

Sunday, February 3, 2008

This paragraph is most appropriate for New Zealand,which has been under severe attack by vindictive female Amazon revolutionaries since the 1970's;"But while liberal feminists attempted separate institutions, and believed in the family and moral conduct, the radicals sought to pull down "tradition" and so-called socially imposed roles".

No one knows exactly why Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago, but a new theory recently reported in the Boston Globe suggests that once able-bodied women, the "reproductive core" of their small population, began hunting with the men, it was game over.Already in survival mode, their combined forces were no match for the perils of climate change, ferocious beasts and interloper Homo sapiens, according to the theory. Worse, while a few Neanderthal men might be expendable, reproductive women were not.In this light, last week's decision from a Manitoba High Court confirming the right of two high school girls to try out for the boys' hockey team, while advancing women's rights, may also be retrogressive.

Barred in 2004 from playing with the boys' hockey team at West Kildonan Collegiate, Amy and Jesse Pasternak appealed to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, which, in 2006 ruled in their favour. The Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association then appealed that decision, but the Manitoba High Court also ruled in favour.

Having won their human rights case, the girls tried out but were nonetheless cut from the team. Today they are in university but the precedent allowing other girls to try out for boys' hockey is established.

So, was it worth it?

Kenneth Minogue, emeritus professor of political science at the London School of Economics, addresses that question in his essay, "How Civilizations Fall." Published in The New Criterion in 2001, ( http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/apr01/minogue.htm) it argues convincingly that radical feminism has undermined modern civilization, even as liberal feminism could be its salvation. In a manner similar to other barbarian invaders, or like Homo sapiens that replaced the Neanderthals, the radicals have sniffed out the weaknesses in the host civilization, Minogue says.

In the 1960s, radical feminists led by Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan and Kate Millet held that women should transcend the roles constructed for them by society, the most confining being wives and mothers. It was music to the ears of women newly graduated from the universities. Liberated by technology from crushing housework and unwanted pregnancy, they made one innovation, Minogue argues, that has been crucial to the West over the last half-century. "They suppressed almost completely the idea that their project involved a transfer of power and operated entirely on the moralistic principle that their demands corresponded to justice."

This new tribe entrenched identity politics, which Minogue characterizes as "an emerging form of fundamentalism." Women gained much confidence from this but they also saw the collapse of the feminine and the creation of "an androgynous (and manipulable) world." The modus operandi of feminization was the replacement of achievement by quotas. Its essential tools were moral rhetoric demanding (highly fluid notions of) justice and fertility control (it's "my body"!). Its citadel was the universities and its vehicles were equal opportunity officers and the media, Minogue writes. The coup de grâce? The Achilles heel of democracy assured that a small opportunistic group would prevail against a majority only marginally affected by its actions.

Even if women are the same as men, they still aren't picking up the torch of innovation that made western civilization largely the achievement of white males. Truly accomplished and determined women have always made their mark, but they had the values of the western heritage backstopping them.

"Liberal feminism," says Minogue, "emerged from the western tradition," which has always been open to talent. But while liberal feminists attempted separate institutions, and believed in the family and moral conduct, the radicals sought to pull down "tradition" and so-called socially imposed roles.

In 2008, the chilling conclusion of Minogue's analysis of the radical feminist agenda is made even more apparent when you consider its sociobiological consequences: the mass infantilization of women no longer exercising any discretion over their bodies, and the creation of new fundamentalist identity groups awaiting the opportunity to finish a job made easier by declining fertility rates.

Now, in Canada, it's boys' hockey, arguably the country's premier institution for channelling young male energies, for developing their moral and physical courage, and for helping them to define themselves as men.

Margret Kopala's column on western perspectives appears every other week.

Friday, February 1, 2008

Only months after a plan generated by California's legislature created a ban on the use of "mom" and "dad" in public schools, the Brits have announced a similar move, with orders for teachers to be more sensitive to homosexuality and not use terms like "mum and dad."